Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Criminal Justice topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
House committee delays bill to toughen penalties for felons with firearms
Summary
A House committee heard testimony on HB49, which would raise penalties for convicted felons who possess firearms and add state-level mandatory minimums to mirror federal sentencing; after lengthy debate over scope and whether to limit the change to serious violent felons, sponsors agreed to roll the bill for amendment.
Representative Garrett introduced House Bill 49 to raise penalties for convicted felons found in possession of firearms, saying the change would empower judges and make communities safer. “I’m here to present House Bill 49. It’s to increase the felon firearm penalty,” Garrett told the committee.
Bernalillo County Sheriff John Allen and his undersheriff described the measure as a tool to target repeat violent offenders and reduce deadly-force encounters. Sheriff Allen said the bill is intended to be both a reactive prosecutorial lever and “a proactive violence prevention tool,” and he cited hotspot policing and local operations as part of the rationale.
An undersheriff presented enforcement data from a recent operation, noting that in one multi‑month local operation a measurable share of arrests involved felon-in-possession or weapons-law violations and that deputies carry a high caseload of violent‑crime matters. The undersheriff asked the committee to consider mandatory, specific penalties so charges would not be routinely severed or bargained away in plea deals.
Prosecutors, chambers of commerce and multiple police officials voiced support. Heidi Adams of the Tenth Judicial District Attorney’s office said she “stands in strong support of this bill,” and business and law-enforcement speakers urged the committee to move it forward as a public‑safety measure.
Opponents told the committee they do not believe higher penalties alone reduce violent crime. Ricki Lee Chavez of the Law Office of the Public Defender said the penalty has been increased multiple times in recent years without reducing prevalence and urged a no vote; Denali Wilson of the ACLU of New Mexico said repeating the same punitive approach “will not produce a different outcome.” Diane McCash stressed the fiscal cost of incarceration and urged greater investment in rehabilitation.
Committee members pressed for data and for clearer statutory language about whom the bill is meant to target. Multiple lawmakers asked whether increases adopted in and after 2020 have had measurable effects and whether the bill should apply only to serious violent felons rather than all people with prior felonies. The sponsor and law-enforcement witnesses said federal prosecution is selective and that mirroring federal mandatory minimums at the state level would reduce pressure on federal resources and hold repeat violent offenders to longer state sentences.
After extended questioning over mandatory minimums, adult age thresholds and whether the draft unduly swept in nonviolent felons, the committee asked the sponsor to work with members on specific language (including restoring or adding a “serious violent felon” qualifier and checking a sentencing cross-reference) and agreed to roll HB49 to a later hearing so an amendment can be prepared.
The committee did not take a final vote on HB49; sponsors said they will return with clarified language and data in the next committee stop.
